The Pecman
-
Posts
3,544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by The Pecman
-
-
Job and family suck down an awful lot of it, not leaving much for writing.
Yeah, TELL me about it. I'm usually so crushed and bone-tired by the time I get home from work, I barely have enough time to check my email, pay the bills, eat dinner, then collapse in my bed... only to wake up 6-7 hours later and do it all over again.
Most of the books on writing that I've read advise that you're better off trying to do just no more than double-spaced pages a day -- maybe 500-600 words or so. They advise, don't try to do more than that, and you can finish a first-draft novel in about six months, which is a reasonable pace. Unfortunately, this advice doesn't seem to work for me; I'm better off when I have an uninterrupted 6-7 hours and can try to crank through an entire 5000+ word chapter. And like many people, I can only write when I'm really in the mood, and it's hard to get to that point for me these days.
Yeah, the last two chapters are getting ripped out and redone, which'll probably mean they'll be four or five chapters...Very cool! I think you're making the right decision, Zot, and I bet your story will be better for it. One suggestion that might help is for you to go back and quickly re-read the previous chapters and note any possibly-dangling plot or character elements that haven't yet been taken care of. (I had to do that twice with my own novels, and it helped me immensely.) I suspect by the time you list all these details, you'll have more than enough material for an extra chapter right there.
I'd like to see you find a way to incorporate the drama class into this; for example, maybe they wind up doing some kind of school play that involves Justin. Maybe something goes terribly wrong in a performance; maybe he forgets his lines or gets stage fright, or a light comes crashing down on the stage and hits somebody, or narrowly misses somebody. Or maybe Justin gets overwhelmed with the crowd and discovers that he enjoys being an actor, once he hears the laughter and applause, and it changes his personality a little. There's a lotta different ways you can go here -- the sky's the limit.
-
In the book, the author, after publishing a medium length novel (~300 pages) was asked to produce a large novel (~600 pages) for his next story. He did so, and it was atrocious.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard! I've never had a publisher tell me to write something longer because they needed to add extra pages! I think this is a fruitless exercise, and the result should be obvious.
To me, what makes sense is to just write something and make it as long as it needs to be, and no longer. I can see the sense in writing long and then going back and paring it down to get rid of the deadwood, but not vice-versa.
As far as a dependency on adverbs and speech tags: I don't think any writing text advises to get rid of all of them. Just use them sparingly (like that one, right there). There's also a way to use other kinds of description to communicate the same idea:
"And how do you suppose we'll do that?" he said sarcastically.
vs.
He raised an eyebrow and gave me a wary glance. "And how do you suppose we'll do that?"
or
"Ha!" he said with a snort. "And how do you suppose we'll do that?"
All three communicate the same idea, but only the first uses an adverb, and it's clear to me it's the weakest of the three. Most of the books on writing I've read stress that just taking out excessive adverbs and modifiers isn't enough; you then have to beef up the sentences with stronger verbs and better construction in lieu of the adverbs.
And sometimes, an adverb is OK to use, particularly when the sentence is ambiguous without it. If a character is being sarcastic, the reader needs some clues to that effect, either from prior behavior, or his or her attitude during the conversation. Otherwise, the reader will get confused, and that's the last thing you want.
-
There is usually (in the USA) a grounding rod or lightning rod attached to the side of a house or very near it. It is to guide static electricity and lightning along the rod, into the ground, away from a house, without harming it.
Actually, that won't work. The estimated power of a direct lightning strike can go well over 1,000,000 watts, with an unbelievable current. This is enough to physically jump over a conventional ground and still make contact.
In other words: there is no real guaranteed protection against a direct lightning strike. If it's a minor strike, yes, lightning rods and grounds can help, but not if 100% of the full force of the lightning hits a building or object. (I know this because I have some electrical engineering background, plus I grew up in Tampa, FL, otherwise known as "the lightning capital of North America.")
About all you can do to protect yourself and your equipment is to stay indoors and unplug any essential electronic gear from the AC outlets.
-
This is a dynamite discussion!
I agree with many of the points above, except to agree that it's important for an editor to be honest, but also provide comments in a way that's both helpful and tactful. That having been said, I think occasionally saying to the author, "hey! This sucks! You can do better than this!" is not necessarily a bad thing. And the other key is pointing out concept, character, and plot flaws while at the same time helping the writer come up with solutions to make everything work.
I've had good and bad experiences editing for other people. In some cases, my advice was mostly ignored, and I opted out of working with that person and wished them well. In others, they took most of my suggestions, but sulked because I had inadvertantly hurt their feelings. In yet another, I had a falling-out with an author (who knows who he is), because he started preaching the gospel to me in email, telling me that "all gay people are inherently immoral." I couldn't handle dealing with what was, essentially a self-loathing gay man who was married, but lived vicarously through the lives of his teenaged characters, who jumped into bed with each other about every five minutes. So you run into a lotta weirdos on the Net.
And I have no problem dealing with editors myself. I've had to develop a fairly thick skin as a non-fiction writer and journalist, dealing with magazine editors for many years. I had some good experiences, though, even when they started out badly; for example, I submitted a story to one technical magazine in the late 1980s, and it came in way too long and the editor was sorely pissed about it. I convinced him to publish it as two separate articles, and wound up getting paid twice as a result! So good things can result from harsh critics.
Codey brings up a good point, in that the editor doesn't have a right to force a writer to change his or her story. If people did that to me, I'd mull over what they had to say, but if it didn't work, I'd tell them why and would stand my ground. Other times, it forced me to re-think my approach, and I wound up going in a different direction, but still one I never would have come up with on my own. So even a suggestion that doesn't work can sometimes be useful.
I think my best editing experience was with Keith Morissette, because we shared a lot of similar opinions about writing, and we were both totally brutal in pointing out flaws in each other's work. I'm really grateful for Keith because of his skill and his honesty, along with the fact that he's a really talented writer (who I dearly wish would write more).
-
16 chapters, six months, and almost 80K words. It's nice to be done.
Hey, screw that. My first novel was 120,000 words, and I cranked out the first draft in a month (while working a horrendous full-time job)! My second was 170,000 words, but that DID take six months.
On the other hand, time and word length don't mean squat. Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingburd was written in a few months, isn't all that long, yet it's the only book Harper Lee ever wrote -- one of the greatest novels written in the last 40 years, IMHO. I think I've read it five or six times. And Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind is immensely-long book (over 1000 pages for the paperback edition), took the author years to write it by hand, and that's the only book she ever wrote, too.
I think a lot of budding authors are daunted by the task of writing a novel. But the reality is that writing a novel isn't like climbing a single massive mountain; it's more like climbing a lot of little ones. When you break a novel down into individual chapters, it's not that big a deal -- to me, anyway.
But I've read a half-dozen books designed to help budding writers complete their novels, so apparently, enough people think it's hard to warrant doing books on that subject. Still, think of this one has just a first draft. I think there's ways you can expand on your last two chapters of Yankee, and amplify and take care of some of the plot threads left at the end. You've got the core of a terrific story, though, and your main character of Justin is a fascinating guy.
-
And you know, all I'll do is just be my usual obnoxious self. :)
No, seriously -- I'm always very much aware how tough it is to accept criticism of your work as a writer. Some people react to it very emotionally, as if you just called their mother a whore, and that they wore dirty socks; others recognize you're only discussing printed words on the page, and they take it objectively.
And it's hard to take criticism, too, because many of us put raw emotion down in our writing. The first story I wrote was a real rollercoaster for me, and I wore my heart on my sleeve for the whole thing. So I have nothing but sympathy for people who put so much of themselves on the line for their writing.
Anyway, I'll try to be nice. :twisted:
-
I want to like Desert Dropping, but Dom's writing drives me crazy for two different reasons:
1) his stories tend to drag out for a long period of time, and I feel they could benefit from some editing, just to compress the action (and get to the point faster)
and
2) DD is a good example of a story that is almost all dialog, with very little description or setting. In other words, we know very little about how the characters or locations look, feel, or smell. I find that very frustrating, because I'm convinced the story would be much better with these added details.
That having been said, I confess I have kept up with the story, and I like the complexity of the narrator (Rory) and his friend Seth. (Although I also kind of wince at the use of very unusual names, which is one of the famous "don't do this" cliches.) Still, it's frustrating to see a story go on for 31 chapters when I feel it could've been just as good (or better) at half that. [but then, I'm also a guy who felt like the recent King Kong remake was about an hour too long, too.] And Dom's stories have held my interest, which is the most important thing.
I think Dom's latest story, Trust, is off to a good start. He avoids several of the above mistakes, and I feel like it's a lot more visual than his other stories. You can read that one here:
-
I wanted to like this story, but once again, the author leans on the amateur trick of alternating points of view! That kills me, because there's a terrific idea for a story at the core of this thing.
If Grasshopper could rewrite the story in 3rd person, I'd be able to actually go through every chapter without wincing. But without that, I feel like the kid in The Exorcist getting holy water tossed on her: "it burns! Arrrrgh, it burns!"
Very disappointing. But in spite of that, I much prefer this Western tale's overall message to that of Brokeback Mountain.
-
Change can be a good thing. Throughout the 1970s, I was really active as a science-fiction and comic book fan, and published all kinds of small-circulation fanzines, participated in geeky conventions, and all that kind of crap.
Now, I can look back on that burst of creative activity and realize, what I was really doing was trying to submerge my social life. In other words, I was doing all that crap to avoid admitting to myself that I was gay, and going out and getting laid and having relationships -- which is what I should've been doing.
Sometimes, we set up things in our life that are little more than distractions to keep us from addressing the real things that are important: friends, family, social life, relationships, having a decent career. I think it's important to try to maintain some kind of a balance between all of these, but that's something with which I struggle every day -- unsuccessfully!
Best of luck to you in getting your priorities addressed. And I hope all the changes are for the better.
-
Well, I agree with Der Pec. This view hasn't won me any new friends, btw, how're you doing with this viewpoint Your Pecness? I've learned to, when asked, say it was a 'fine film and a beautiful short story'."
Well, I've told a few friends at work I was put off by the film's overwhelmingly negative tone, and I also think the film is very poorly edited. On the positive side, I'd say it's very well-photographed, and the art direction goes a long way to emphasize the bleak, stark homes, streets, and buildings of small Western towns during this period. But the script is suckaroonie. (That's a technical term, meaning, "it sucks.")
Really, when you throwaway all the gloss, what you have is a one-note film that says, "gee, gay people sure have to suffer a lot, especially when society won't let them be who they really are." And that pisses me off.
Shit, towards the end of the two cowboys' relationship, it's the fucking 1980s, for chrissakes! You can't tell me by then they can't just divorce their wives, hook up together and move to a more gay-friendly town. Maybe this is a simplistic ending, but it's far more satisfying than what we have here.
On the other hand: I'm troubled by Gene Shalit's review. He obviously didn't get the film at all, and he's 100% wrong in much of what he says. No way did I ever get the impression that Jake Gyllenhaal's character was "a sexual predator." He's just a horny 20 year-old guy who's thinking with his gonads, as many people that age do. I think it's fair to say that Gyllenhaal's character was maybe 50/50 in terms of being gay, while Heath Ledger was more 90/10 (only 10% gay). Maybe if Heath had never met Jake, he might not have ever had the chance to act on that 10% that was part of him.
Last comment: I think the main reason some gay people are reacting positively to Brokeback is simply because at least it's one very visible film about gay relationships. Even those who, like me, find fault with the film have to confess that having some kind of award-winning presence in the media is better than being invisible. But this is not the kind of movie that's gonna make young, impressionable gay teenagers want to come out of the closet and be happy with who they are.
-
Second is a related issue. Even a sensitive, peaceful boy like Lucas is going to react in different ways. He'll be angry; he'll fight back with words, if not with his fists. He'll be clever and determined. He'll find things he's good at, ways to set aside the isolation. He'll be stubborn or sullen once in a while. He'll find a way to stand on his own. He can't feel that awful every second.
All excellent points! Yeah, I'd think after five years of having very few friends and being ostracized, the kid would be cynical, angry, and have a very sharp tongue. Maybe to cover up his own security, he's become a distant, insulting kind of guy who pushes away anybody who tries to become his friend.
I like your idea, Blue. Everything you cited adds up to a story I'd really like to read. If you ever choose to write a story like this, let me know and I'll be glad to assist behind-the-scenes and provide some ideas and feedback. Sometimes, even an editor needs editing! :)
-
I agree with Blue's first comment above. I think this is too much a "oh, woe is me!" kind of story, wallowing in self-pity. I fell like slapping the kid and saying, "shit, man! Stand up for yourself! Don't let 'em get you down." Hell, I'd tell him to take some self-defense lessons and stop getting beaten up, and maybe change schools if people are harrassing him.
I also find it unbelievable that after five years, his childhood friend finally comes to his senses and approaches him with an apology. I might believe five or six months, but not five years.
And I also had a problem with the writer's difficulty with English (I assume he's French Canadian, and I sympathize with the difficulties of dealing with a foreign language). There's some clumsy sentence structure and odd usage here and there that I think could've been fixed by careful editing and a few rewrites.
All that having been said, I think there's a core of a good idea in the story, but I don't care for its approach. I think there's a way to do a story like this where the narrator doesn't have to be so much of a victim and has a little more self-respect, maybe even find a few friends. Hell, I would've preferred it if the guy had run away a couple of times or at least found some way to knock some sense into his parents to accept him. What's presented in the story is too simplistic and convenient for me (example: what school would allow a locker to be painted pink for FIVE YEARS?) Life is a lot more complicated than this, and I think good fiction has to reflect that.
-
I'll throw my two cents in only because nobody else has raised this point yet.
Brokeback Mountain is not a very good movie, nor is it a great movie. I think it's a very sad, tragic, depressing movie, and not the kind of film I'd like to see twice.
Nobody wins, everybody loses, and I'm not even sure anybody learns anything from their lessons about life. I also found the ending (after the death of one of the characters, whose name I'll omit for those who haven't yet seen the film) to be long and boring and terribly drawn-out -- at least 15 minutes longer than it needed to be.
As far as I'm concerned, the only newspaper columnist who has the right take on Brokeback is noted bisexual gossip writer Liz Smith, who pointed out how negative, violent, and bleak the movie is. I found the film to have a lot more in common with The Last Picture Show, another film about the lives of sad, hopeless people in a sad, hopeless small western town.
My second nitpick with the film is technical: the moment the first sex scene ended, I turned to my longtime partner and said, "well, this movie was definitely written and directed by straight people." No two guys instantly have anal sex in 1 minute without any prep, foreplay, lube or nothin' -- unless it's a prison rape scene. And the guy on the bottom is gonna make a helluva lotta noise. I found this to be totally, ridiculously unbelievable.
Lastly, I had a big problem with the whole flashback thing (again, I'll omit the details) involving one of the character's death. My problem with it is that it was presented in a very ambiguous, blurry, non-specific way, almost to where we weren't sure what we were seeing. Was this supposed to be fact? Was it how another character imagined the death? Was it in reference to the previous deaths mentioned earlier in the film? To me, without a specific close-up of the dead character, it feels very muddled and confused. (Critic Roger Ebert, who I often agree with, cited the same thing at the end of his review.)
The bottom line is, this ain't a movie that's gonna make straight people like or understand gay people more. It might make them feel sorry for us, or wonder how "tortured" and "anguished" we are in a straight world. But I don't see a lot of positive things about it. It's a total downer.
1982's Making Love is more my idea of a decent gay movie, and it still has its share of sex, romance, drama, conflict, and emotion. I think it's a much more powerful film, but undoubtedly Brokeback is going to make much more money. And I'll predict right now it'll win at least Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and (I hope) get Jake Gyllenhaal a statue for Best Supporting Actor. (Some support! Sheesh!)
-
Just a quick update on this story: Oprah just had the guy back on her show in late January and excoriated him for lying to her about the book's truthfulness. His publisher announced they'll be giving refunds to anyone who bought the book directly from the publisher (but not from book dealers), and somebody just filed a class-action fraud suit against the author and the publisher.
I think this is much ado about nothing, but it just shows to go ya, how people get so nuts about this stuff. Ironically, sales on the book went sharply up after the recent publicity, but I suspect the author's new book won't do nearly as well.
-
Blue is right. It's exactly right as-is.
There are many situations in writing, unfortunately, where correct grammar and punctuation look a little odd at first glance. For more on this, check out these references:
The Chicago Manual of Style
by University of Chicago Press Staff
The Elements of Style (4th Edition)
by William Strunk Jr. & E.B. White
and my personal favorite:
Eats, Shoots & Leaves:
The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation
by Lynne Truss
All three belong in any serious writer's library, and you can get used copies very cheap through Amazon and other used booksellers.
-
When does fictionalizing a story cross over the line? Is James Frey covered by dramatic license or is he a liar, liar pants on fire?
You know, I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, the guy fibbed about all these events happening in real life, just as he described. On the other, the reviews I read indicated the book was very well-written, and depicted a harrowing tale of a guy who went all he way down in life but somehow managed to bring himself back up.
So to me, the bottom line is: is the book well-written? Is it entertaining or enlightening in some way? Is it worth reading? If the answer to those three questions is yes, I couldn't give a flying fig if it's true or not.
I believe it was Napoleon who said, "history is a collection of lies statesmen have agreed upon." If a writer tells lies for his book, but the lies are a better story than the truth, then I'm not sure any great harm has been done.
-
Yeah but if you lose the reader at the first chapter nobody ever GETS to the second chapter. Most online stuff I give up after three pages if SOMETHING doesn't get my attention.
Yes, exactly. I agree with 100% of what you say.
My time is so limited these days, if I'm confused or put off by the first chapter of any novel, there's very little chance I can get convinced to read further. I don't doubt that the later chapters of the story reveal more about the character and explain the situation, but I think there's a way to provide significantly more clues and more detail to make the story more interesting.
Harrod200 didn't address my other notes -- adding more description, giving us more details about where and when the story takes place and so on -- and those would go a long way towards improving the story. Strictly IMHO.
-
In a recent thread there was talk about the necessity of grabbing a readers attention and interest very quickly.
I believe this is absolutely true. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single great novel, by any author, that doesn't grab my attention fairly quickly. If you doubt me, read Noah Lukeman's terrific book The First Five Pages, which provides numerous examples on precisely why it's important to put as much as you can in the opening scene of your novel.
And at the same time, I confess to breaking this rule with both of my novels here on Awesomedude, neither of which grabs the reader that quickly with the first five pages. I've considered going back and rewriting them, but for the moment, I'm trying to concentrate my energies on a new novel. That one starts with a bang, right in the opening paragraph, so no one will be able to say that it wastes any time getting started.
I believe when submitting manuscripts it is normal to include a synopsis with that submission which will help the reader decide if they want to persevere, even if the story is slow to start.There are good and bad ways to submit manuscripts. Some publishers and agents only want a query letter, where you provide a one paragraph summary of your novel, then offer to send some sample chapters or the complete manuscript if they'd like to read it further. Others will take the entire manuscript immediately. But the synopsis alone is not enough to sell a book.
I'll probably end up saving that for if I try to get it published, as I believe it'll result in a complete renumbering of all chapters as the descriptive detail in chapter one is spread...It might be less difficult than you think. Try another draft, rewrite the first chapter to give it more emphasis as quickly as possible, and then see what happens. Renumbering chapters is easy; rewriting (and writing) is hard.
-
If all or part of your story is available, I'd be willing to read the first chapter over the next week or so. Tell me where it is, and I'll give it a shot.
Otherwise, email me one chapter as an MS Word file to:
thepecman@yahoo.com
and I'll give it a once-over. If I think it has potential, and I can find the time, I'll give you a detailed edit. At worst, I'll jot down some overall thoughts on whether I thought the open works, if the characters are interesting, and if the plot makes sense, and make my comments more general.
You might want to read my Gay Writing Tips piece elsewhere first. I do get cranky when I see a half-dozen violations of those ideas, especially when the story invokes tiresome old cliches done in a predictable way. (And that's assuming there aren't any drastic problems with spelling, grammar, or syntax.)
-
Be careful what you ask for!
But since you asked for feedback, and I have temporary insomnia at the moment, here's a few overall comments:
1) the text you're using is hard to read -- IMHO -- at least, using Safari 2.0 under Mac OSX. Sure, the background is cool on its own, and the white typeface is large and clear enough, but the two clash together in a way that makes it hard to absorb the story with such a busy background. Maybe I'm a fuddy-duddy, but I believe fiction (and even non-fiction articles) should be presented with a plain background, resembling as close as possible typeset copy in a printed book. To me, text superimposed over a picture only works as a title page, a cover graphic, or an advertisement -- not for an entire novel.
2) I have no clue *when* or *where* the opening chapter takes place. I'd like a little more information on the surroundings and time of where we are. Is it the future? The past? The present? What country are we in? We know the language is English, but are they speaking with an accent? What do the people wear? Are there guards with guns? Is the lead character in handcuffs or prison garb?
I need more visual clues. What does the place smell like... feel like... look like? Is it plain? Modern or old fashioned? Steel walls or stone? Painted or dull? Dusty or clean? Is it like a hospital or a jail, or more like a school? Locked doors or open? Any posted signs anywhere? Any clocks? Any noises going on, like alarms or background people? We have utterly no clue from your lack of description. I need more information to believe this place really exists.
3) We know little or nothing about your protagonist other than he's older than 6. Find a way to tell us more without going into blatant self-description. At worse, have him look in the mirror and tell us what he sees. Is he tall or short? Fat or thin? Young or old? Any scars, physical problems or deformities? I'm not even sure if he's even human for that matter, though the judge does call him "Mr." (And what does the judge look like? Where does he sit? Is he a judge from the 1800s with a white wig, or a modern judge in regular black robes?)
Alternately, at least have the psychiatrist give Longley a few shreds of information. Otherwise, the opening chapter is so cold and detached, it doesn't grab me and make me want to read more.
4) finally, if the lead character is charged with a crime, I bet it's written down somewhere. Everybody arrested (at least in the U.S., and I assume in the UK) is given a piece of paper that lists the charges. At least then, he'd know exactly what's going on. Or if he's not sure, have him actually ask the psychiatrist or another character.
As is, your story might be great, it might be terrible, or it might be somewhere inbetween. But from what I've seen so far, it's hard to make me want to read more after so much is left unsaid in the first chapter. If you can fix these problems, or at least try a new approach that isn't so frustrating for the reader, I think you'd make the story much more accessible to more people.
-
i recently finished reading Through Different Eyes. I was totally impressed...an intelligent and creative story, masterfully told.
I stumbled on this one tonight, and was really, really impressed, both with the plot and the characters. Hunter did a terrific job with it, and it's reminiscent of the best of Phillip K. Dick's stories of the 1950s and 1960s. Dynamite stuff!
My only quibble -- and it's a very small one -- is that the author takes his sweet time in working in the gay element. Only deep into the story do we find out that our narrator is gay; up until then, we only know he's a 14 year-old computer geek with low self-esteem. But this is a minor point.
It's highly recommended, if only for the fact that it kept me guessing throughout, and made me want to read more. There were more surprises in four chapters than in the last two or three entire novels I've read recently.
-
OK, I gotta tell you up front, there ain't any gay stuff in this novel. It's a very thin, slim pocket-sized book, very short, but I found it to be one of the most profound and moving stories I've read all year.
The plot is deceptively simple: an elderly amusement park maintenance man dies while trying to save a small child on a malfunctioning ride. After he dies, he meets several people who basically tell him what the point of his life was, and how everybody's lives intersect on some level, along with the lessons learned from each experience. Much of the story is told in flashback, and as the tale unfolds, we learn about the man's family, his relationships, and the people around him, and how all of them are affected by events (good and terrible) over the years.
I had stayed away from this book for years, partly because it was an enormous best-seller, and partly because I thought it'd be one of those cornball, new-agey "feel good" kinds of things, like a printed version of cotton candy. I was totally wrong. Five People has moments that are downright mean and gritty, even horrifying, and there's not a false note or anything corny to be found anywhere. All the emotions ring very true, and the story ultimately leads to a very moving finale, but perhaps not what you'd expect. A lot of it reads like an excellent hour-long episode of the old Twilight Zone show, but presenting the audience with a lot of profound moral issues that really make you stop and think.
Author Mitch Albom is an exceptionally-talented man; the subtleties and descriptive power of his prose are impeccable. Every character seems very alive and real, no matter how small or insignificant they may seem. Any budding author could learn a great deal just by observing how beautifully Albom crafts each sentence.
Anybody who reads Five People and doesn't come away affected in some way has got to be made of stone. I'm buying a half-dozen copies and giving 'em away as Xmas gifts.
-
It is very interesting to use this software. It frees me of the burden of typing, which is admittedly a pain in the backside.
The very, very fine writer Rod Serling was the first author I knew of who did most of his writing (at least during the 1960s and early 1970s) by dictation. He'd have a secretary transcribe it later. He was comfortable enough with it that he actually did an episode of Twilight Zone about a writer who dictated all his books, only in that case, what he dictated began to materialize in real-life, like magic.
It doesn't work for me, because I get too self-concious having to speak the dialog of several different characters. But I have to confess, if you read what you write out loud, you find out very quickly what has a natural rhythm to it, and what sounds stilted and phony.
At the same time, there's something I enjoy about pondering a blank page, then hitting the keys as I hear the voice in my head. That works for me, but I can see where voice recognition could work if you were going for speed.
-
What, if anything, would you change in the following sentence?: After four games, we were ahead by one.
To me, it's not so much a mistake as it is simply an ambiguous sentence. Ahead by one what? One game, or one point? I'd have to see it in context to understand it.
I absolutely abhor ambiguity in writing. Express a complete thought, and make it clear, epecially when it's something arcane (like sports) or technical, on a subject the audience might not understand.
So in this case, I'd say, "After four games, we'd won two, lost one, and tied for the last one. The final match would make or break us." No ambiguity there.
I have no clue on pool, so if it's billiards, I'd have to read a Dummies guide and learn enough terminology that I could at least fake it on the page. I know absolutely zip about football, but I did enough research to bluff my way through the team scenes in ANGEL. My readers seem to think I pulled it off, though a couple of readers spotted some minor gaffes (like a quarterback running his own touchdown, which is extremely rare). But it worked for the story, so screw 'em.
Scan to donate
A view from the other side of the editor's desk
in Editor's Desk
Posted
Yeah, I agree. I think there's a way to criticize something and be rude (ala Simon Cowell), and there's a way to criticize something in a positive way.
I think one of the ways for an editor to do the latter is to suggest a solution. One of my big concerns is "dangling plot threads," where a writer introduces a character or a situation, then never resolves it later on. Another is dialog that doesn't sound right for the situation; that can usually be worked out just by speaking it out loud.
And I agree, young writers (as the Wicked Witch one said) "have to be treated del-i-cate-ly." At the same time, it does neither the writer nor the editor any good if you're beating around the bush. If there's a problem, just say it, get over it, fix it, and move on. It ain't that big a deal.